The court affirmed the importance of natural justice, ruling that repeated debarments were a result of legal mala fides and arbitrary actions by authorities, warranting the quashing of the debarment order.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Subra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 by way of which the representation of the petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 23063 of 2024 ( M/s Satish Chandra Dixit vs. State of U.P. and others ), has been rejected, and upholding the order of debarment dated 21.06.2024 for the remaining period of 9 months 22 days (i.e. up to 21.02.2026) has been upheld.

Facts of the Case

3. The office of Superintendent Engineer Badaun, Pilibhit Circle, P.W.D. Bareilly had invited tender vide notification dated 11.12.2020 for the work of financial year 2020-21, i.e, for the construction of minor bridge; and the value of the work was 514.00 lacs. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the false complaint made by one Shri Javed Khan proprietor of participating firm M/S A.M. Builders, the petitioner was debarred and the single tender of M/S A.M. Builders was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner was debarred for the second time on 26.11.2021 and against which he had preferred Writ-C No.890 of 2022 ( M/s Satish Chandra Dixit vs. State of U.P. and others ) and this Court vide order dated 28.07.2022, held that the order of debarment, is a result of “whimsical and arbitrary” exercise of power and was quashed.

4. It is relevant to mention here that the notice was given on account of the fact that the declaration on e-stamp paper of Rs. 10 was made, while thereafter to rectify the said bona fide mistake, and by way his explanation, the petitioner submitted a declaration form on e-stamp paper worth Rs. 100/- and therefore, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not at all considered while passing of the impugned order, i.e. an order of debarment for a period of 1 year from entering into a fresh contract.

5. It further transpires that a complaint in the month of February, 2022 was made by the petitioner before the Lokayukta at Lucknow, pointing out irregularities adopted in the tender which was given to M/s A.M. Builders and in pursuance thereof a High Level Committee was constituted and eventually the Committee submitted its report along with its recommendation dated 19.09.2023, finding culpability of 6 Engineers being guilty of 17 charges.

6. On account of the aforesaid penal action being proposed, it has been alleged by the petitioner that initially he was pressurized to enter into a compromise with the officials of the department, who were found guilty in the report of the Lokayukta dated 19.09.2023 and once he did not succumb to the pressure, he was given a show cause notice by the respondent no.3/Chief Engineer (Headquarter-2), Public Works Department at Lucknow; alleging that the petitioner has annexed erroneous experience certificate at the time of participating in tender proceedings in the year 2019, in District Badaun; and an erroneous experience certificate in Bareilly at th